Noel M. Valis

Directory of Open Access Journals

CELESTINESCA "' EL TRIUNFO DE CELESTINA' : THE GO-BETWEEN AMD THE PENAL CODE OF 1870" Noel M. Val-is University of Georgia On the whole, Spanish law prior to the 1800's must be considered a harsh and highly punitive mechanism for governing the disorderly elements of society. A case in point is the legal status of the go-between, who could be flogged, tarred and feathered, thrown out of town, delivered into the hands of an outraged and dishonored husband, heavily fined, or even burned at the stake, accordi ng to Gothi c Law arid a variety of· medieva 1 fueros. 1 By the second half of the nineteenth century,_however, celesti­nesque figures had acquired a modicum of legal acceptability, although it was not always reflected within society itself. In 1867, for example, a cuckolded Spaniard pressed charges not only against his wife but .also against the presumed accomplice, her maid, who received a prison tenn of twenty-four months and was made to bear the burden of part of the court expenses for her duplicitous role in the affair. But on June 3, 1874, the Supreme Court overturned the earlier tribunal's decision because, it main­tained, punishment of the go-between ran counter to Article 449 of the Penal Code of 1870.2 Though the Court agreed the maid's behavior was reprehensible and contrary to the dictates of morality, in abrogating the sentence, it, in effect, declared the go-between innocent or, at least, not guilty. What did Article 449 say that it should cause this rather stunning reversal of a judgment which clearly mirrored society's true feelings toward the role of the celestina in cases of adultery? And why, in particular, was the criminal code of 1870 cited in this instance? The legal history behind the 1870 code is illuminating. Until 1822 there was no Spanish penal code in existence, other than reaopi'laaiones and fueros; and this first code, shaped by the precepts of the Enlightenment and the refonner Beccaria, lasted only a very short time. The 1870 measure is based on two previous attempts to codify criminal law, those of 1848 and 1850, and is considered the most important reform effected in this particular branch of Spanish law for two particular reasons: its incorporation of sorne of the princi­ples of the Glorious Revolution of 1868, and its systemized, orderly, and even elegant presentation of crimes and their punishment. It is signifi­cant that the code continued to be, with very minor changes, the same code 35 https://doi.org/10.7203/Celestinesca.5.19529CELESTINESCA in e f fec t  during the Second Spanish Republic, and that  i t  s t i l l  consti- tuted the foundation of criminal law during the Franco era.3 Early reception of the 1870 Penal Code was in general extremely fa-  vorable, but by the 1880's cri t icism, in the form of newspaper a r t i c l e s ,  books, and a ser ies  of legal draf ts  or  proyectos intended t o  improve the code, was now heaping abuse on the presumed defects and omissions of tha t  very same legis la t ion .4  One of i t s  severest c r i t i c s  was don Luis Silvela de Le Vielleuze, a t  one time a professor of law of the University of Ma- drid.  Brother of the Conservative p01 i t i c i an  Francisco Si lve la ,  don Luis was a highly respected j u r i s t ,  a deputy and a senado~ v i t a t i c i o  i n  the Spanish Parliament, a wr i ter ,  and a contributor to  La Espcz%a Mode 5". E2 Imparciat, and other journals of the day. He died on May 2, 1903. On August 30, 1880, Silvela,  under the anagram of "Elias V i s l l ~ , "  in- augurated i n  Los Lunes & El Ehparcial a ser ies  of highly c r i t i c a l  a r t i -  c les  on the Penal Code of 1870. The second of these, en t i t l ed  "El t r iunfo  de Celestina," appeared on September 27, 1880, and l ike  the others in t h i s  se r i e s  was l a t e r  reprinted in Si lvela ' s  book, Et c6digo penal y e t  sentido corn& (Madrid, 1886). In th i s  piece, the eminent j u r i s t  explains why Article 449 of the code i s  legally flawed in i t s  position toward the sup- posed culpabil i ty of the go-between in ac ts  of adultery. Article 449 declares tha t  "no se impondri pena por de l i to  de adul- t e r i o ,  sino en virtud de querella del marido agraviado. Este no podia deducirla sin0 contra ambos culpables, s i  uno y otro vivieren, y nunca s i  hubiere consentido a1 adul t e r i o  o perdonado a cualquiera de e l los .  "6 As Silvela lucidly points out,  the key words in the a r t i c l e  are  s i m  c a t r a  d o s  cutpables: as interpreted in the Supreme Court decision of June 3, 1874, and as understood by lawyer Silvela,  t h i s  means a re ta l ia tory  hus- band can i n i t i a t e  a complaint only against the  offending wife and her lover, i f  both should be l iving a t  the time. No mention i s  made of $a possible accomplice, such as a go-between. Thus, in e f fec t ,  the  law, by i t s  omission, has winked an eye a t  the hoary ins t i tu t ion  of the cetestina in ni neteenth-century Spanish society. To prove the law wrong Silvela se t s  up a f i c t i t i ous  case of adultery and terceria i n  his piece, a case in which he sympathetically (and some- what humorously) juxtaposes the helplessness of a forgiving victim-husband to  the scheming culpabil i ty of the celestinesque maid-accompl ice.  What i s  of part icular in teres t  in lawyer Si lve la ' s  cr i t ique  i s  the quasi - f ic t ional  form i t  takes in "El tr iunfo de Celestina." I t  i s  not mere happenstance tha t  the almost costmbris ta- l ike  sketch appeared f i r s t  i n  the l i t e r a r y  section of the prestigious Madrid daily,  E t  ImparciaZ, i .e.,  Los Lwles. As the author himself s a t i r i c a l l y  points out in a ser ies  of invented l e t -  t e r s  which passed between a l t e r  ego "Elias VisllQ" and don Luis Si lvela ,  "cuando aquellos art iculos aparecieron en l a  hoja l i t e r a r i a  del peri6dico a que se ref iere ,  no pudo menos de causarme el  mds profundo asombro el  ver tratados de un mod0 f r ivolo  y l igero 10s problemas mds oscuros y d i f i c i l e s  del derecho penal. "7 I t  was not as though nineteenth-century Spanish readers were no longer accustomed to the decisive role a go-between could play in a f fa i r s  of the heart. Ram6n Mesonero Romanos provides a juicy CELESTINESCA example in l a  madre Claudia of his 1838 sketch, "De t e j a s  arriba" ( ~ s c e ~ s  matritenses, Serie 11). And celestinesque characters continue to  appear a f t e r  tha t  date in ,  fo r  instance, Benito P6rez Galdbs' La de Bringas ( the maid Celestina; 1884) and Jose Ortega Munilla's Cleopatra P&ez (doiia Le- t i c i a ;  1884). B u t  in the case of Luis Si lvela ' s  invention, though the piece i s  structured as a narration, i t  i s  ultimately the didactic element which predominates, as the m o m t j a  tacked on in the form of a concluding remark reveals : "Es deci r--excl am6 mi hombre ,--que no hay remedio y que de todas maneras e s t l  asegurado el t r iunfo  de Celestina" ( p .  49). Silvela prefaces his sketch with a quotation from Cervantes on the profession of the alcahuete (Don Quijote, Part I ,  C h .  XXII) and, then, using a first-person voice, launches into a meeting between the narrator- lawyer and an unknown, well-to-do gentleman "de cincuenta aiios, delgado, de aspect0 tfmido y t r i s t e ,  decentemente vestido, y aunque ninguna deformidad afeaba su rostro ni su persona, era dsta t a l ,  que no dejaba de prestarse a1 ridiculo" (p. 38). Suspiciously Cervantine in appearance, the would-be c l i en t  proceeds to t e l l  his sad but familiar  story of an unequal marriage between himself and a lovely, youno, and penniless g i r l ,  who brings with her, a s  her only inheritance, an untrustworthy maid: "Si V .  quiere,--says the narrator--1a llamaremos Celestina" (p. 40). The unsurprising typical - i t y  of the c l i en t ' s  subsequent t a l e  of betrayal i s  enlivened by a number of r e a l i s t i c  touches in the t e l l ing  of i t  and in the good-humored though commiserative reaction of S i lve la ' s  f irst-person mouthpiece. This invented case of adultery closely para l le ls  in i t s  out1 ines the r ea l - l i f e  case ci ted in the 1874 Supreme Court decision, an instance which the narrator himself brings up in his discussion of the law's f a i l u r e  to cas t igate  the cezestina. ". . .Si l a  Celestina ayuda a l a  esposa a privar de l a  honra a su marido,--continues the lawyer--1a ley pena a l a  mujer cuando el esposo agraviado se  queja, y absuelve, aunque se  queje, a l a  Celestina" (p. 4 6 ) .  The husband, who would l ike  to forgive his wife but punish the  maid, then declares: "Yo soy u n  ignorante, caballero; per0 a m i  eso me parece inicuo y monstruoso. Por ese camino vamos a l legar  a 10 que con mucho gracejo decfa Cervantes: a considerar el of ic io  de l a s  Cel es t inas  como necesarisimo en l a  repQbl i ca bien ordenada , con ndmero f i j o ,  como 10s corredores y agentes, y que no se  podrd e jercer  sino des- pugs de examen previo, juramento y fianza" (pp. 46-47). Well, repl ies  the j u r i s t ,  the t r u t h  i s ,  except in the case of minors (Art. 459 of the Penal Code), the go-between i s  f ree  to  exercise the profession in present-day society. And furthermore, he observes in an amusing exchange of dialogue (.p. 48), i t  i s  not even possible to  wreak vengeance on the go-between, f o r  well-administered kicks and blows, no matter how jus t i f ied  .they appear, are not admissible under the law (Art. 438). Thus, society and the law in  the l a t t e r  half of nineteenth-century Spain clearly diverge in the i r  perception of the acceptabil i ty of the  cetest inu and her mediating role.  Middle-class morality and the s t i l l  - present obsession with husbandly honor clash with the imperturbable f ina l -  i t y  of the law's omission of tercer ia  a s  a recognized crime. In cases of adultery, then, only the cxriginators, o r  autores, of the i r  fate--the lovers --are gui l ty  and l i ab le  to  punishment.8 Si lve la ' s  argument against the CELESTINESCA l a w ' s  f a i l u r e  t o  make accomplices responsib le  was a persuasive one i n  "El t r i u n f o  de Celest ina"  because, i n  the time-honored fashion o f  Horace, he forged a hybr id i zed  inst rument  o f  d e l i g h t  and i n s t r u c t i o n ,  o f  document and s t o r y ,  and, i n  t h e  process, prov ided us w i t h  y e t  another example o f  t h e  endur ing soc ia l ,  l i t e r a r y ,  and even l e g a l  i n t e r e s t  o f  the  Ce les t ina  charac te r  i n  Spanish l i f e  and  letter^.^ NOTES Claudio Sgnchez-A1 bornoz, Esp-, un enigma hist6ric0, I, 4 t h  ed., (Barcelona: Edhasa, l973) ,  pp. 473-80; Jos6 Lu is  Bermejo Cabrero, "As- pectos j u r i d i c o s  de K," i n  LC y su contorno social. Actas del I Congreso IntemzacionaZ sobre LC, Ed. Manuel Criado de Val (Barcelona: B o r r i s  Edi -  ciones, 1977), pp. 402-03; and Douglas G i f f o r d ,  "El mundo de Trotaconven- ~ o s , "  i n  E l  Arcipreste de H i t a .  El l ibro,  eZ autor, Za t ierra,  la Gpocca. Actas del I Congreso InternacionaZ sobre e l  Arcipreste de Hita, ed. Manuel Criado de Val (Barcelona: S.E.R.E.S.A., 1973), pp. 129-30. Jose Maria Pantoja, ed., Jurisprudencia criminal. CoZecci6n com- pleta de las sentencias dictadas por e l  Tribunal Supremo en 20s recursos de casaci6n y competencias en rnateriuZ criminal, X I  (Madrid: Imp. de l a  Revis ta de Legis lac ibn,  1875), pp. 17-19. For background on n ineteenth-century reform i n  Spanish.  penal law, see Eugenio Cue1 10 CalBn, Derecho penal. Rev. by C6sar Camargo Hernbndez. Tomo I, Vol. I ,  16th ed. (Barcelona: Bosch, 1971), pp. 146-59 (Ch. V I I I ) .  The bes t  account o f  the  1870 code i s  Ruperto Ndfiez Barbero's La reforma penal de 1870. Acta Salmanticensia, Derecho, X X I  I 1  (Salamanca: Univers idad de Salamanca, 1969). Ndfiez Barbero, Ch. V 1  ( " C r i t i c a s " ) .  The two most impor tant  l e g a l  reforms proposed, among several,  were t h e  proyecto &galLa2 (1880) and t h e  proyecto S i l ve la  (1884), the  l a t t e r  d r a f t  named f o r  Lu is  S i l v e l a .  None o f  these attempts a t  re form was approved by the  Cortes (see Cuel lo  Calbn, Ch. V I I I ) .  See "Si l ve l  a, L u i  s , " Ehciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo- americam, LVI  (Barcelona: Espasa-Calpe, l978) ,  p. 276. C6digo penal de 1870 (Con l as modi f icac iones i nt rodu ic idas  por  e l  Gobierno de l a  Repiibl i c a )  . Col ecci6n J u r i s ,  V (Madrid: [Compafiia Ibero-  americana de Publ icaciones] , 1931), p. 198. D. Salvador Viada y Vi lase-  ca, i n  h i s  Apendice a2 C6digo penal reformado de 1870, 2nd ed. (Granada: Imp. y L i b r e r i a  de D. Jose L6pez, 1876), Cuadro Ndm. 66, gives a wide range o f  the poss ib le  lengths and k inds o f  punishment f o r  adu l te ry ,  s t a r t i n g  w i t h  t h e  minimum o f  one month and one day t o  a maximum o f  s i x  years o f  imprisonment and a f u l l  sca le o f  f i n e s .  CELESTINESCA Luis S i l v e l a ,  El  &dig0 p e n a l  y eZ s a t i d o  cormbt (Madrid: Tipo- g r a f i a  de Manuel G. Herndndez, 1886),  pp. 11-12. Hereafter  c i t e d  w i t h i n  parentheses i n  t e x t .  Pantoja, ed. ,  h r i s p r m d e r r d a  criminat, X I ,  p.  18. Nfiiiez Barbero observes t h a t  " l a  tes is  de S i l v e l a ,  por l a  hab i l idad  con que fue presentada, se a b r i d  camino en l a  doctr ina y l a  jurispruden- c i  a" ( p .  64).  -%P Una Celest ina d e l  s i g l o  dieclnueve. I l u s t r a c i b n  a "La Celest ina" de  E l  S o l i t a r i o ,  o s e a ,  Estebanez Calderbn. Madrid, 1851. Nrmada c Gimenez . CELESTINESCA Parmeno: "Ella  t e n f a  seys  o f i c i o s ,  conviene a saber:  labrandera, .  per- i fumera, , maestra y de f a z e r  virgos poquito hechizera . de f a z e r  a f e y t e  ;, a lcahue ta  y un 11 (auto I Celest ina:  "No me la nombres, f i j o ,  por Dios,  que s e  me hinchen 10s o j o s  de agua . . . "(auto VII ) . Figura: Kathryn W .  Wolfe Fotos: J. T. Snow 

«El triunfo de Celestina»: The Go-Between and the Penal Code of 1870

https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/celestinesca/article/download/19529/17290

«El triunfo de Celestina»: The Go-Between and the Penal Code of 1870

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals